I'm writing in response to your
lengthy letter dated December, 2000 (Postmarked 12/16/00). Given the nature and
scope of your response, I felt it necessary not to take four (4) months to
reply.
To your possible dismay, I am for union
solidarity but the union keeps driving a wedge between active members, service
and disability retirees, witnessed by the familiar rhetoric of the author of
your response. In your
letter you state, "I intend to publish this response
in Fire Lines". Of course, in the spirit of your definition
of unionism, you didn't intend to publish my letters. I suspect that you won't
publish this response either. You can reach more than 20,000 active and retired
firefighters, with what you consider a response to my letters, while I struggle
to get out the truth to only a few thousand. However, I am very thankful for
today's information highway, as it provides an individual a better chance
against a big machine's slanted rhetoric.

In your response you
state, " I have tried to set out the substance of your
questions ". Well, it is my contention that you did an end run
around most of my comments and questions. The author of your letter chose not
to "quote" my questions but rather to make-up his own version of what
my concerns were, effectively putting a spin on many real concerns and issues.
I will try to unwind what you have torn asunder. MY COMMENT:
"The unions warned their new partners that 'disability exclusion'
was necessary or service retirees could expect a reduction in their defined
benefit payment.

MY
COUNTER RESPONSE:
There was so much money actuarially available in the VSF (Defined
Benefit), that the union supported special legislation in 1994 to give a
substantial increase to prospective retirees. This would insure the exclusion
of disabled retirees, any increases for service retirees and by no stretch of
the imagination, votes for incumbent board members. You chose not to detail the
1994 legislation. Why ? MY COMMENT:
"We all know how the VSF was generated in the 1968 contract from
pension moneys, contributed to equally by 'all' members, and never meant to be
distributed unequally"

MY
COUNTER RESPONSE:
UFA "records" show that both UFA presidents, who were involved
with the 1968 contract, said that the VSF was for "ALL" retirees.
Legislative history shows that disability retirees were not excluded until the
UFA proposed legislation in 1972, which changed the wording "From
Service" to "For Service". Subsequently, additional legislation
was proposed by the UFA to include "certain" vested retirees, one of
whom was, ironically, a then recently retired UFA board member.
Evidently your statement,
"The agreement with the City to sponsor legislation creating the
VSF was conditioned upon it being limited to service retirees. No amount of
historical revisions can change that fact", is
untrue.It is evident, from the above, that your version of the
VSF history is totally inaccurate. Additionally,
let me correct your statement that the VSF benefit applies to those who retired
since 1971. Of course, you must have meant 1968.

MY COMMENT:
"Disability retirees only wanted a legislative inquiry as to how and
why disability retirees were excluded. There was an inquiry bill in Albany, for
years, yet the unions fought behind closed doors to impede that legislation,
effectively choosing sides among their retirees".

MY
COUNTER RESPONSE: You state ."I am certain that you know
that the 'inquiry bill' was a way to obtain legislative approval for expanding
the benefit without regard to what effect it may have on the entire VSF
scheme". Where did you ever come up with that scenario ? The
inquiry bill was just what it stated, only an inquiry to review the history of
both the contract and legislation. It could award NO MONEYS to anyone. If the
inquiry bill discovered anything, it would have taken separate legislation to
correct any inequities. The UFA was fearful that the inquiry would find out the
facts surrounding the VSF. The unions never should have taken sides over an
inquiry bill. To accept that the union's reasoning was to prevent a possible
dilution of the benefit is absurd, knowing the amounts of moneys available and
the aforementioned subsequent 1994 legislation.

MY
COMMENT:
"It has been a travesty, for the past 10 years, that both unions
have been vicariously sleeping with the enemy. Real 'labor leaders' would never
sacrifice their retirees, so active members could get
raises. No one
knows better than the 'Retiree', that the active firefighter deserves every
penny he/she can squeeze from the City coffers. The VSF has been a windfall for
the City ever since the unions chose to trade it in for the 'Defined Benefit
Plan'. This along with assumption rate changes, has provided for contract
raises ever since. The union has become no more than a training ground for the
next Fire Commissioner".

MY
COUNTER RESPONSE:You state, "I am proud of the UFA's
accomplishments in the last decade in improving both the wages and working
conditions of our members". Unfortunately, when you provide
"double zeros" for active members in contracts, agree to assumption
rate changes and then agree to delay funding of security benefit moneys for
retirees, until the last years of the past two contracts, while the City raked
in over $4 Billion in VSF excesses, it seems "too cozy" to say the
least.

MY
QUESTION:
Re: Security Benefit Fund "How much does the City fund for active
and retired members? Is their funding up-to-date? When a firefighter retires,
does the City immediately fund his/her retiree benefits? How are administrative
costs shared"?

MY
RESPONSE:
Thank you for your direct and informative response to those questions.
How long has this been the accepted procedure ?

MY
QUESTION:
"Why is there no generic drug co-pay for retirees"?

MY
COUNTER RESPONSE:You state, "Be advised that at the time we
instituted a co-pay for generic drugs for active members, we did so based on
the recommendations of our outside consultants on how to keep our fund solvent.
At that time, they also explored a generic co-pay for retirees, but found that
it did not make any financial sense to the fund. It simply would not result in
sufficient savings". Mr. Gallagher, if your consultants told you
that, even though we all know that retirees spend more money on prescription
drugs than active members, then something is rotten in Denmark !

MY
COMMENT:
"Let me inform the unions it was 'their agenda' that pushed for
legislation which allowed the FDNY Mandatory Insurance to be increased to a
maximum of $25.00 a month. It took a mere handful of talented retirees to beat
back the powerful UFA and UFOA and have new legislation passed that would cap
the monthly premium at $9.00

MY
COUNTER RESPONSE:You state, "The UFA, in attempting to avoid
the need for future legislative efforts, asked for a $25.00 cap".
Sir, if the entire New York State legislature felt it was necessary to
correct your enacted legislation, by passing new legislation, then I need not
say anymore !

MY
COMMENT:
"I would like to clarify the unions 'non-participation' in the hard
fought, long deserved COLA that was won by retiree groups across New York
State."

MY
COUNTER RESPONSE:You state, "The COLA was achieved through the
efforts of not only retiree groups, but also the efforts of this union".
Sir, retirees were in Albany every day and tried to get your
representative to join with them in petitioning state legislators to accept the
COLA package but were turned down. The proposed COLA package was to cost the
city over $900 M. The City, et al are on record stating that a COLA, at that
cost, would effect city worker's raises in the ongoing contract negotiations.
The City, et al fought to reduce it to a $500 M COLA package. Please tell me
which COLA package the Union supported ? Never mind, I already know. Let it be
noted that the unions will, one day, come to organized retiree groups to
petition their support, before they seek legislation that will affect retirees.
That day is approaching fast.

YOUR COMMENT:"The Tier reform which was created as a way of
saving the City during the financial crisis in the 1970's has also been
addressed. I don't remember anyone jumping up and
down to help the new firefighters in the 1970's and beyond - your silence was
deafening."

MY
RESPONSE:
Are you about to compare these prosperous times to the 1970's ? Tens of
thousands of City workers were "Fired", including thousands of
firefighters. I lost my job ! A job I took for security ! There was no money
available then, as there is today ! Are you saying that past union leaders
sold-out new firefighters and now you're going to take credit for their
salvation ? Come on, the City had a $3.2 Billion surplus last year and a $2
Billion surplus this year. If the union wasn't able to correct that disparity
now, then they might as well have folded up their tents.

QUESTIONS
YOU CHOSE TO AVOID: (1) When the union fought the Inquiry Bill,
were retirees' dues used in that fight ? According to a breakdown on how
retirees' dues are used, $20,000.00 is dedicated for fighting for retirees in
Albany, not against them.(2) Are the unions demanding the return of
the $25 M that was handed over from our pension fund to the City, in order to
guarantee the Defined Benefit Plan ? If it was recently declared illegal in the
COBA package, then it was also illegal for both the Fire and Police unions.
(3) Why did the unions choose to publish the
names of the VSF litigants and place that list in each firehouse ? Why didn't
the unions publish the names of those retirees who joined to fight the
litigation, with the unions and City, with their "Amicus Curae"? It
was evident that you took sides again

COMMENTS
YOU CHOSE TO AVOID:(1) Four quotes from the City, UFA, UFOA and
the Court, regarding their position on the VSF legislation. I will not bother
to repeat them. Although, I will add that disability retirees didn't get their
day in court, as the City and unions' "Motions to Dismiss" stopped
them from having discovery and a trial. The courts also used "Castellano
I" in dismissing the disability litigation. "Castellano I"
stated that the Police contract was "silent" as to who was to receive
the VSF and that the Legislature made the exclusion. The "Firefighter's
contract was not silent, but changes to the original legislation did exclude
disability retirees, ergo, the "Inquiry Bill", to see how and why the
legislature made the exclusion. Disability retirees did not want to go to
court; they only wanted the Inquiry Bill, which was successfully blocked by the
unions. The Court said, go back to the legislature. Sounds like a perfect catch
22 to me ! (2) What is needed is a retire e
representative at union board meetings, especially when retiree issues are
being discussed. I understand it may be difficult for current union leaders to
remember past negotiations, especially if they weren't on the job at the time.
A retiree representative would solve that inequity. (3) There have been many changes to the
original VSF legislation that the unions supported, but the legislation which
excluded any future widows from benefitting in the VSF, when their husbands
chose to take a pension "option" may be the most disheartening of
all. So much for our widows !(4) Since it was a known fact that there was
more than enough moneys in the VSF (Defined Benefit) for all firefighters, why
would the unions be willing to let the City gain such a windfall and continue
to allow disability retirees to be disenfranchised ? The fact, as you put it,
that the fund would be diluted for service retirees is a fabrication contrived
by the union.

In closing, I would like to
thank you for finally answering my letters to Mr. LaMacchia, even though you
added your own "spin" to my concerns. I
hope that I have corrected any misleading statements and misunderstandings by
the union. I respectfully ask again, as I did in my last letter, that you print
my letters to the union in the "Firelines", in the interest of fair
play and better communications. Controlling the content of the
"Firelines" can not be well received by either active or retired
firefighters for very obvious reasons. Lastly, I would like to thank the UFA
for, at least, being available for retiree meetings and listening to our
questions, something that I can not say for others.

Im writing this follow-up
letter, since I havent received an answer to my original correspondence
of August 22, 2000, which was sent by Fax and regular mail. I know many
questions were posed in my letter and I trust it will be answered before the
UFA makes any decision that alters the Retirees Security Benefit Fund.
Since no answer has been received to date, I would like to add the following so
it too may be addressed by the union.

Let me take you back to the early and mid-1970s. The city leaders
were spending moneys they didnt have. They needed to borrow money but all
lending institutions turned their backs. Gerald Ford, then President, told New
York City to Go To Hell, according to The Daily News. It even
reached the ugly point of layoffs, if you recall. I was one of
those unlucky firefighters, even though I had over seven (7) years on the job.
Each firefighter who was laid off had to turn in their badge and
Book of Rules in order to get their last check. It was
the unions who permitted the city to borrow pension fund moneys,
bailing the city out, avoiding default and allowing furloughed firefighters to
eventually be re-hired. These were really troubled times, to say the least!

During and after those years, many contracts were signed that included
benefit packages, in lieu of raises, because the city was broke. We sacrificed
so the city could meet its debt. Now the union wants to take away retiree
benefits? Thats absurd! Youre actually taking away the raises
retirees received in the 1970s and after. When negotiating with the city
in current contract talks, it would behoove the union to remind the city and
themselves of the above and demand more moneys be infused into the retirees SBF
instead of taking away their hard fought raises. I understand, it
may be difficult for current union leaders to remember past negotiations,
especially if they werent on the job at the time. Thats why, it is
imperative to have a retiree sit on the board, so some semblance of continuity
and justice may be retained. Dont sacrifice those who made the sacrifice!
Fight for them, as those who should fight for you, when you retire.

I understand that you may be
answering my two previous correspondences, of August 22 and September 26, 2000,
in which I posed many questions concerning retirees benefits. May I
suggest, for the purpose of better communications, that you highlight all my
concerns and questions (?) by publishing both my letters in The
Firelines, along with your expected response.

I have been in contact with a few thousand retired and active
firefighters, who share my concerns. Of course, The Firelines has
the ability to reach 10,000 active and 10,000 retired firefighters and without
publishing my letters along with any planned response, you would just
exacerbate the lack of communication retirees are now experiencing. This would
be a great opportunity for the UFA to show their concern for retiree issues. I
believe that retirees dues pays for the retirees
Firelines, according to a breakdown by the former treasurer of the
UFA. If this is the case, then retirees should be permitted to voice their
concerns in writing and have their questions answered in The
Firelines.

If the
retirees page in The Firelines would contain something in the
nature of Letters to the Editor, I believe it would go a long way
in educating both the retiree and active firefighter and break down the wall of
ignorance which is responsible for dividing a once united house.
Thank you for your expected concern and consideration.

The holiday season was considerably brightened for hundreds of retired
correction officers last week as the first checks from a Variable Supplements
Fund-derived retirement benefit went out in the mail.

New York City Retirement System Executive Director John J. Murphy said
that checks dated Dec. 15 have been mailed out to 276 retired correction
officers of all ranks. For those who retired in 1999, the checks are worth
$8,500. Jail officers who retired this year up until November will receive a
portion of that amount pro-rated to the month that they left active service,
Mr. Murphy said.
Will Crest at $12,000
The annual special retirement benefit will increase by $500 increments
until 2007, when it will peak at $12,000.
"VSF was a major victory for the COBA memberships said Correction
Officers" Benevolent Association President Norman Seabrook. "Although
I would have enjoyed getting that benefit for everybody who worked in
correction from the beginning of time, on my watch it started in
1999."
Some of the officers who retired before then and are not getting enhanced
retirement benefits went to Manhattan State Supreme Court Dec. 13 in an effort
to prevent the checks from going out.
Kevin Fitzpatrick, an attorney representing the New York City Correction
Retirees' Benevolent Association, sought a temporary restraining order to stop
the payments. He argued before State Supreme Court Justice Eileen C. Bransten
that paying out the special benefit would threaten the entire New York City
Employees' Retirement System with "catastrophic tax losses,"
endangering the regular pension benefits of retired members.
Justice Bransten refused to grant the restraining order, noting the
lateness of the motion, given that the checks were due to go out that same
week. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that the retirees group will continue its underlying
lawsuit challenging the VSF-derived benefit.
Echoes City's Claim
Ironically, the claim that the new benefit would place NYCERS in
violation of the Internal Revenue Code, causing the IRS to treat city
contributions as income and possibly subjecting retirees to taxation on their
pensions, was one of the arguments made by the city in its attempt to kill the
correction VSF legislation. Responding to the retirees lawsuit, however, Jerry
Dwyer of the Corporation Counsel's Office tried to debunk this theory in
Manhattan Supreme Court.
"For them to say, 'If-we can't have it, they can't have it,' is
really selfish and unfair," Mr. Seabrook said in response to the lawsuit.
The COBA leader said that the inability of the union to get retirees covered by
the correction VSF legislation was based on the similar exclusion of police and
fire retirees from the additional benefits after the police and fire unions
agreed to trade in their Variable Supplements Funds for a defined benefit more
than a decade ago.
In lobbying the State Legislature and Governor Pataki for the
legislation, COBA made the case that its members deserved the same benefit as
cops because of their law-enforcement role. The Governor agreed to sign the
bill only after the correction unions agreed to seek follow-up legislation
transforming the VSF into a defined benefit equal to the one granted cops and
firefighters.
Fears Tax Hit
"We're on fixed incomes and are just trying to protect what little
we have," said Anthony Arfi, the legislative chairman of the Correction
Retirees' Benevolent Association. "If this thing about being out of
compliance with the IRS goes through, we'll end up paying taxes on our
pensions. We can't afford to lose any more."
One longtime observer of the city pension scene said there was no danger
of the IRS demanding income tax on pensions. "That argument might have had
legs in 1999, but it doesn't now," he said.
Because the originally legislated Variable Supplements Funds were based
on a "skim" of stock market earnings and not a fixed benefit, they
did raise possible tax concerns, the pension expert said. He added, however,
that the IRS made no move to impose income tax on police and fire pension
benefits when VSFs were established in those systems. "With the conversion
to a defined benefit," he added, "I don't see where it would be a
problem."

On August 25th, I received a letter from a
Mr. John Gilleeny. After reading the message, I forwarded you a copy and the
enclosed letter.
To date, I havent received a reply from you or any other
representative of Local #94. I dont know if this omission was through
ignorance on your part or another example of your total disregard for the
retirees.
In my letter, I had earnestly made a suggestion that you, in the sprit of
union brotherhood, and for the betterment of all concerned parties, the active
firefighter, and the retiree, sit down and try to iron out our problems.
Apparently, you seemed to have taken the position that the retiree is not
worthy of your concern. I am dismayed by this lack of concern, someday we all
become retirees.
One of my main concerns is the way members are excluded in contracts. I
always thought that the union represents all, not just groups of when you
retired. A prime example of this is the way the pre-68 retiree has been
excluded. I ask you Are these members not a part, or never were a part of
Local # 94? Is this a new phenomenon, when negotiating?
In closing, I am writing this letter to be constructive. We all make
mistakes but we must all learn by our mistakes. That is why, in the spirit of
union brotherhood, I ask you to seek a solution to an ever growing problem.

Fraternally,
Peter J. Slane

MINUTES-12/27/00

United Retired Firefighters Association

CITY OF NEW YORK - FIRE DEPARTMENT 40 HOLDEN BLVD.STATEN ISLAND, NY 10314

Rev. Everett Wabst led prayer for all
active and deceased firefighters, including Bob Sheehan-Treas., who will
undergo by-pass surgery and an active firefighter who is battling for his life
after a car accident.

John Gilleeny read the minutes from the
previous meeting on 11/29/00.
Gerry Bellingham made motion to accept minutes as read. John Barr
seconded motion. Motion unanimously accepted.
John Sollazzo welcomed retiree representatives and guests. He then
introduced Mr. Stanley Reimer - Honor Emergency Fund.
Stanley Reimer passed-out some information on the H.E.F. and gave a brief
history of the fund and how it operates. The bottom line is, if any active or
retired member is in doubt about his/her qualifications, simply call Mr. Reimer
and he will answer any and all questions. All requests are based on financial
need.
Ken Dolan asked if Financial Statement of H.E.F. was available for
retirees. Mr. Reimer will get back to John Sollazzo with that answer.
John Sollazzo then introduced Bill Mirro, Recording Secretary-UFA,
MikeCarter-V.P. and Tom DaParma-Queens Trustee.

Bill Mirro spoke briefly about Global
Fitness Health Clubs and discount membership for active and retired
members. Mr. Mirro then addressed the UFAs concern for both active and
retired members who have never updated their Beneficiary Cards with
both the unions and the City. Please Update!
Tom DaParma gave a current example. It was duly noted by all present.
Mike Carter also addressed retirees. He floated an idea, with those
present, to see how they felt about ending the FDNY Mandatory Life Ins.
($5,600) Carter stated that the Insurance program had lived-out its usefulness.
He stated that one way it could be dissolved was to issue shares according to
how many years each member contributed. Dan Finegan and others showed some interest
and asked if Mike could put the offer in writing, so they could share it with
their members. Mr. Carter will draft a proposal for URFA.Vinny Olivetto asked for the total UFA
active and retired members and how much was presently in the FDNY Mandatory
Fund, as he could not conceive the fund not making plenty of money. Bill Mirro
stated that there were 8931 active firefighters and approximately the same
amount of retirees. (UFA) He said there was $14,000,808.00 in the fund as of
July, 2000.John Gilleeny expressed his concern about
cashing out of the FDNY Mandatory Ins. He noted that the UFAs approach
was, again, for the active members benefit. Gilleeny stated that the UFA
was not a forward looking union and they have not done their job
educating the active member. i.e. The UFA must inform the active member that
his/her UFA ins. policy, of up-to $300,000.00, will die when the member reaches
age 70 and the only insurance they may have left is the FDNY Mandatory and the
SBF or Family Protection Plans $2,000.00. John said this insurance was no
different than Social Security and school taxes. We pay for others and others
pay for us. To drop our insurance because the active member can do better with
his/her $9.00 a month is shameful and selfish. The UFA must educate them to the
facts.Mike Carter discussed some of the UFA backed
legislation which includes (1) Full reimbursement for Med. Part B. (2) Spousal
coverage for health benefits at City rate + 2%. (3) Allow retired members to
become school teachers. (A foot in door for other retiree employment) Carter
spoke about Military buy-back and that it is open from 10/19/00 to 10/19/01. He
also said that Kevin Gallagher has asked the City, in current bargaining
agreement, to go back and visit the original contract and legislation, that
excluded Service retirees from getting pension supplementations and COLA since
1988-89 contract, because they receive the VSF.Ken Dolan, immediately, spoke to why the UFA
chose to block the VSF Inquiry Bill. Mr. Carters answer was, although the
UFA was positive that the VSF was meant only for Service Retirees, there was a
possibility, however slight, that the Inquiry Bill would seek to include
Disability Retirees. Dolan charged that the unions effectively took sides by
opposing an inquiry. Much discussion took place concerning the VSF.John Gilleeny stated that he was not
speaking for Mr. Dolan but thought that Kens question went beyond the
Inquiry Bill. It showed the unions willingness, rightfully so, to try and
unravel a possible wrong in the 1989 contract and yet chose to block an Inquiry
Bill that would possibly unravel any wrong in the 1968 contract. Gilleeny noted
that the Inquiry Bill was just that, an inquiry. It had no power to award any
moneys to anyone. Special legislation would be required to accomplish those
ends. All parties would be welcome to fight any such legislation.Bob DiVirgilio, John OSullivan &
Charles Bohan each gave their version of the VSF history, all agreeing that it
was meant only for Service retirees. Dan Finegan asked if the UFA intended to
recoup the $25 M they gave to the City from our pension fund in return for the
Defined Benefit Plan.John Gilleeny stated although the $25 M came
out of our pension fund, only Service retirees benefited from that
loss.Bill Mirro explained that many other
contract benefits, including longevity increases, were involved in the 1989
contract. He stated, if the UFA went after that money, the 1989 contract would
have to be unraveled, inviting the possible loss of many contract gains.
Ken Dolan expressed his concern over retirees being forced to take
Medicare as their primary health insurance, when they became eligible. He
stated that Federal Regulations provide you with an option. UFA will check it
out and get back to John Sollazzo. Bob DiVirgilio informed members that a
Health Benefits Workshop is being planned. He will invite the
administrators of respective health programs. Bob will keep retirees posted.
Dan Finegan mentioned what happened in
Florida with HIP. The City gave Floridians other carriers to contact and some
of those carriers werent even available to our retirees. He stated that
carriers like to go where reimbursement rates are high.
Bill Mirro noted that Staten Islands rates were the highest at
$831.00 Henry Demchek informed retirees that SCARF
has group Medigap Program at competitive rates. (Only in N.Y.
State) Plan A was $66.00 a month. Gerry Bellingham asked what the UFA thought
about the URFA hiring their own lobbyist. John Gilleeny added that the Florida Retiree
groups were primed for a retiree lobbyist. Mike Carter stated that he doesnt see
it as a terrible thing. He thinks that retirees would be on the same
page as the UFA 99% of the time. He noted that the UFAs City
Council lobbyist was Norman Adler and the UFAs Albany lobbyist was
Richard Winston. There was no further discussion from retiree members.John OSullivan asked, Isnt
that what Bob DiVirgilio does now? There was no response.
Bill Mirro spoke at length about retirees Security Benefit Fund. He
handed-out papers which showed both income and expenditures. Bill noted that
retirees spend more on prescription drugs than the active firefighter. Mirro
stated there will be an increase, in the near future, for retiree out-of-pocket
costs. It was noted that the UFOA has already imposed those increases on their
members. Bill explained that the UFA was part of the Municipal Labor Council,
which was comprised of just about all City unions except the PBA. Mirro said
that both active and retired members, from all unions, get the same dollar
amounts in their various union administered health funds. He encouraged using
the V.A. in order to keep cost down and hoped there would be federal
legislation on Medicare Drug coverage. John Gilleeny asked if it was too late for
retiree input concerning planned increases. John was also concerned, if
retirees reduced their drug costs by using the V.A. and possibly Medicare, that
the unions wouldnt need to seek future substantial increases from the
City in order to cut retirees costs, because all active health plans were
very solvent. This would allow the unions to use those needed moneys,
elsewhere, in their negotiations.
Bill Mirro welcomed any and all retiree input. He went on to explain that
the Retiree SBF, according to projections, would go bust in 2003. He stated,
again, that being a part of the MLC, each union would receive the same amounts
for their respective health plans. Rudy Migliore, Atty said that his
primary push for legislation would be for the widows benefit bill, which would
seek the ability of a widow to secure health coverage at the Citys cost +
2%. He and the UFA will be fighting for this in the upcoming legislative
session. Mr. Migliore also mentioned that there would be an asbestos screening,
this February, in Florida. John Gilleeny asked Mr. Mirro about a
retiree representative on the UFA SBF Board.
Bill Mirro stated that it was not a popular issue among UFA board
members. He, however, felt there was some outside possibility a retiree(s)
could serve in some advisory capacity. John Sollazzo asked if it would be a good
idea to raise this issue with President Gallagher and the UFA board.
Bill Mirro said it couldnt hurt for the URFA to present this
suggestion to President Gallagher and the board.John Sollazzo thanked Mr. Mirro for staying
the entire meeting. John also thanked Bill for answering the many questions and
concerns of the retiree. It was Sollazzos hope that this meeting would be
the catalyst for renewed communications with the UFA. John Gilleeny called for URFA election of
officers. John asked if there was any interest among those present, to run for
any office. There was no response. Gerry Bellingham made motion to retain the
current officers for another term. Seconded by Dan
Finegan. Motion carried unanimously. Ken Dolan made motion to close meeting.
Seconded by Gerry Bellingham. Motion carried.
Meeting adjoined at 1545 hrs.

Respectfully submitted,John Gilleeny Paul Cinqemani

11/29/00

United Retired Firefighters Association

CITY OF NEW YORK - FIRE DEPARTMENT 40 HOLDEN BLVD.STATEN ISLAND, NY 10314

Meeting called to order at 1045
Hrs.Pledge of Allegiance & moment of
silence.

Presidents
Report: (John Sollazzo) 1) Discussed the need for URFA
semi-annual, membership meeting. 2) Spoke about the success of COLA
bill and how hard retirees worked. 3) Addressed concerns over HIP
closings in Florida and Long Island.4) Spoke about Florida groups
discussing feasibility of retiree lobbyist. 5) John stated that he had contacted
many groups, nationwide, and addressed the URFAs lack of communication
with associate divisions.6) Discussed possibility of Stan
Reimer (Honor Emergency Fund) attending semi-annual meeting and representatives
of UFA & UFOA.

Treasurers
Report: (Bob Sheehan) 1) Checking -, Savings -Total: - 2) Spoke about the merger of Nassau,
Peconic and SCARF divisions. 3) Discussed 6 divisions which are
delinquent in dues payments, including Nassau County, which will be merging
with SCARF. 4) Mentioned that certain Life
Membership monies were turned over to RMA, as he was not apprised of the
fact that the URFA had life memberships. This will be worked out by him and Jim
King, Pres. RMA.5) Said that a computer was never
returned by Past President Leddy. The board was unable to come up with solution
to the problem due to the time lapse. 6)Motion to accept Treasurers
Report - John Gilleeny, seconded by Frank Martinez. Unanimous.

Frank Martinez -
RMA: 1) Spoke at length about John
Gilleenys (Keystone, PA) letter to UFA (LaMacchia). He noted the
frustrations of the writer and other retiree groups with the UFA & UFOA. He
stated that he understood those frustrations but felt there was a lot of talent
being wasted. He said that we (URFA) needed to provoke more thinking, plan
strategies and to incorporate our thoughts and feelings into a renewed vision,
in order to be a successful, united group. 2) He went on to state that we (URFA) have
failed to educate the active firefighter. 3) He explained the need for these
strategies and information to be placed in a binder for each retiree group to
have. This binder will be constantly updated so all groups will share the same
information. He explained the format he is currently working on. (Delegates
Manual) He stated, he should have the project completed after the first of the
year. It was well received by all members present.

John Sollazzo read
correspondence from Pete Slane, AZ which dealt with John Gilleenys
letter. Mr. Slane agreed with most of the letter but was interested in better
relations between retirees and the unions and retirees and the URFA. He wrote a
letter to UFA Pres. Gallagher with those concerns but never received a reply.

Jerry Bellingham -
Embers, NY:1) Spoke on the positive response he has
received from Up-State retirees re: Gilleenys letter. He said that a
recently retired UFA Executive Board member attended an Orange Cnty.
retirees meeting and disagreed with letter. He stated that he will answer
all the questions in a letter to the Orange Cnty. Board. Orange Cnty. will
provide him with equal space in their newsletter. Stay tuned.2) Jerry also spoke on Comm. Von
Essens statement that the Retirees from the War Years are now
paying the price with their health. Bellingham went on to say that it is simply
not acceptable for retirees to lose any benefits, especially when it concerns
our health.

John Gilleeny - Corr.
Secretary:1) Reported that he did not receive any
negative responses to his letter. As a matter of fact many retiree groups
published his letter in its entirety. Gilleeny expressed his concern that the
RMA and Staten Island retiree groups chose to ignore the UFAs projected
changes to our drug coverage in their respective newsletters. 2) Reported that it is over 3 months since
his letter to the UFA, and still no response.3) John asked Pres. Sollazzo to request,
from the unions or city, a list of all retirees, so we can provide them with a
membership opportunity in the URFA or their local division.4) Requested that Pres. Sollazzo seek dues
check-off for retirees UFA Catastrophe Major Medical Insurance. He noted that
active members are currently afforded the check-off. 5) John noted, in response
to Pres. Sollazzos phone calls to various division leaders concerning
communications, that there has been no info & no minutes provided to him to
disburse.

Bob DiVirgilio - Exec. Secretary:
Spoke at length, with accompanying paperwork, on legislation and other
related information. 1) (A-6027, S-3585) Passage of FDNY
Mandatory Life Insurance with a $9.00 cap. He noted that, if the actuary
certifies to the board of trustees that an increase in such sums payable is
warranted .the board shall by resolution, increase .such sums payable
in accordance with the certification of the actuary.
John Gilleeny asked if the report that retirees FDNY Mandatory
Insurance payoff has been increased, as reported to him, from $5,600 to $6,000.
Bob will find out that information. 2) (S-5172-A, A-9625-A) Legislation for
Widows Health Insurance Coverage which will allow the spouses of deceased
retired NYC Firefighters & Police to continue their health insurance
coverage at the city policy rate, plus 2%.3) (5483, A-8142) An act to amend the
Administrative Code of the City of New York, in relation to the investment
powers of the Board of Trustees of the City of N.Y.Fire Department mandatory
Life Insurance Fund. ( Would allow broader investment powers)
4) Reported City Council Int.# 580 would require the city to fully
reimburse Part B premiums to those retirees on Medicare, in an amount equal to
the premium rate for that year.5) Informed members that the market value of
the FDNY Pension is $6.2 Billion dollars and there are currently 11, 477 active
members and 16, 160 retirees.6) On Social Security - reported : If
youre at least 65 and receiving Social security benefits, you can now
work without having your benefit reduced. If youre approaching 65 this
year and choose to work, your benefit will be reduced $1.00 for every $3.00 you
earn over $17,000.00, until the month you reach 65. Then you can work without
any reduction.7) He reminded members - Adm. Code
12-126(b)2 provides that if a retired member of the uniformed force is
receiving a service related disability pension and subsequently passes away
from such condition, the widow and children under 19 years of age would be
eligible for health insurance.8) Informed members of change in IAFF
Constitution, re: IAFF Retiree Organization, Resolution # 4. He pointed out
line 43 - Resolved, That the retiree Committee in its findings and
recommendations shall protect local autonomy, ensure the jurisdictional
integrity of affiliates and preserve the voice and vote of active
organizations; It is believed that the retiree representative for our area will
be the Active President of Yonkers Firefighters. (Form your own opinion.)

Attorneys: Migliore
& Infranco:
1) Rudy Migliore reported that there were two screenings today and others
are scheduled. If anyone has any questions please contact him.
2) Reported that payments are currently being received by firefighters
from Garlock Corp. Amounts differ according to the severity of each individuals
case.

The next meeting will be the semi-annual
membership meeting tentatively scheduled at the Rock on December
27th or 28th. Stay tuned

As We See
It
Horace B. Deets, AARP Executive Director (Jan., 2001) Prescription drug benefit
A priority in 2001 agenda
Despite the confusion, Surrounding, the presidential election results,
the American people were clear on one issue. They want prescription drug
coverage in Medicare. There is not a consensus on how it should be structured,
but leaders of both parties, and voters across all age groups, agree that it is
needed.
As the new administration submits its first budget proposal and the 102nd
Congress structures its budget resolution or "blueprint," it is
imperative that they set aside in those budgets enough money to fund a viable
prescription drug benefit in Medicare. Many competing interests will vie for
use of the budget surplus, and if funds are not earmarked for a prescription
drug in Medicare now, the money will used for other programs before the
particulars of a prescription drug benefit are worked out.
The amount needed to adequately fund a prescription drug benefit in
Medicare depends upon how the benefit is structured, but it is painfully clear
that the $40 billion set aside by Congress last year is inadequate. A $40
billion contribution from Medicare toward the five-year cost of a prescription
drug benefit would leave beneficiaries with very high premiums and coinsurance
for their drug coverage. For example, it assumes that, beneficiaries would pay
50 percent co-insurance on each prescription they receive, compared to 20
percent co-insurance they are required to pay for services under Medicare Part
B. Certainly, Medicare beneficiaries do not expect to get a prescription drug
benefit for free, but they must view a new benefit as affordable - as a good
insurance buy.
The key to framing an adequately funded prescription drug benefit in
Medicare is to attract enough people into the program so that the risk is
spread across a wide pool of participants. In other words, a stable, affordable
benefit requires the participation of healthy people as well as those who spend
heavily on prescription drugs. Today, good medicine requires prescription drug
coverage. For all Americans-regardless of age-prescription drugs embody the
promise of 21st century medicine. Yet for many older Americans this promise has
not been fulfilled. Many Medicare beneficiaries are forced to choose between
filling their prescriptions and putting food on their tables. Our nation can do
better.
People age 65 and older comprise 13 percent of the population yet
purchase one-third of all prescription drugs. Older Americans understand as
well as anyone the need for economizing on drugs and the need to contribute to
the cost of coverage. A prescription drug benefit in Medicare is not only a
dollars-and-cents issue; it's also a common sense issue. All older
Americans-today and in the future-should have the choice of a workable,
affordable and stable prescription drug benefit in Medicare. Republicans and
Democrats agree they need it. And with strong bipartisan cooperation, Congress
and the new administration can make sure they get this benefit.

Is Cheapest Deal Really Best ?Chief Editorial (1-05-01)PBA President Pat Lynch was given a month
head start by other uniform leaders to make a deal they all would try to
replicate. But by putting him on the clock in that fashion, the other unions
sent a signal to City Hall that they were ready to leap-frog the PBA if its bargaining failed to ignite.
This was not the best way to play contract poker, since it gave city officials
an indication that they might not have to beat the best hand to win the
round.
Surely the other unions know that. But there are also understandable
reasons, beyond impatience, for their reluctance to simply sit back and let
their, destiny be determined thePBA talks.
A large one, was Mr. Lynch's retainer of Bob Linn, Ed Koch's former chief
negotiator, to argue the PBA's case. When he worked for the city, Mr. Linn was
a skilled, creative negotiator, and his deal that led the police and fire
unions to trade-in their Variable Supplements Funds has
saved the city $4 billion and counting.
But union leaders remember only too well that this very deal with the PBA
in 1988 put the rest of the uniformed unions at a bargaining disadvantage
because it was structured in a way that punished unions whose members stayed in
their jobs longer than the average Police Officer. Whatever hard feelings may
still linger toward Mr. Linn-a misplaced anger, since his mission then was to
make the best possible deal from Mr. Koch's
standpoint, not theirs, are compounded by the concern that he could very well
use the PBA's stronger bargaining case to once again, get a contract that
rewards that Union's members at the expense of other uniformed employees.
That is a large reason the uniformed forces coalition is moving ever
closer to a deal with the Giuliani administration. It might not be the maximum
possible wage hike, but settling first would offer those unions the security of
not being boxed-in once again by the PBA.
Their suspicions could ultimately work to the Mayor's advantage. A
question remains, however, about whether getting the cheapest possible deal
this time and thwarting the grander goals of the UFT and the PBA will
ultimately benefit the city.
During the same round that he agreed to those constricting uniformed
union deals, Mr. Koch authorized Mr. Linn to give city nurses contract terms
that exceeded those won by other unions, including the PBA. There was no political advantage to doing so; in
fact the uniformed unions were his staunchest labor allies. Rather, that was
one of those cases where Mr.. Koch became persuaded that the shortage of
qualified nurses was so severe that only by stepping outside the basic
bargaining pattern could the city hope to compete with neighboring
jurisdictions in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel.Mr. Giuliani prides himself on being an
unconventional politician. It remains to be seen whether, in the area of
collective bargaining, that unorthodox streak will be confined to squeezing all
the available dollars from the unions during his first administration to
balance his budget, rather than using it to solve long-term compensation
problems.

No Exam For
Firefighter In '01, City Says
Mark Daly (The Chief - 12/29/00)
Next year's Firefighter test has been canceled, the Department of
Citywide Administrative Services announced Dec. 20.
The exam, which was expected to attract thousands of applicants, was due
to open for filing on Jan. 3. A new filing period and test date was not
announced.Wanted More Tests
The scheduling of the exam had represented a victory for Fire
Commissioner Thomas Von Essen, who had pushed the city to hold Firefighter
tests at two-year intervals in order to boost recruiting efforts among women
and minorities.
But the department later decided to make the most of the current list,
No. 7029, after discussions with fraternal groups, an FDNY spokesman said. The
city now will revert to the standard four year interval between tests.
The city will continue to hold regular Firefighter promotion tests for
qualified Emergency Medical Service personnel and college students in the Fire
Safety Cadet Corps. Last week the filing period for the next Firefighter
promotional was delayed one month, to Feb, 7-27, and the written test was moved
to May 19.

Peter J. Ganci Jr. was sworn in as Chief of Department at the Fire
Department Dec. 22, two days after a new eligible list was issued for the
title. He had served provisionally for over a year in the city's
highest-ranking Competitive Class position. .In all, 10 candidates were on the new roster
for the FDNY's top uniformed post. Mr. Ganci was ranked No. 5, but he could be
picked over the top eligibles because the first two and next three candidates
had tied scores.Von Essen's CallInvoking the civil service 1-in-3 rule
allowed Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen to
permanently appoint Mr. Ganci since he was tied as the third-best scorer.
"He's served in an acting or provisional capacity for three years
now . He's demonstrated the skills and abilities as Chief of Department,"
a Fire Department spokesman said of Mr. Ganci.The use of the 1-in-3 rule in picking the
Chief of Department has been strongly opposed by the Uniformed Fire Officers'
Association. UFOA President Peter L. Gorman was not immediately available for
comment last week.The candidates for Chief of Department were
all Deputy Chiefs who competed in an oral test last December. Several have
appeared on previous lists for the position.The top-ranked candidates were Edward J.
Dennehy and Joseph J. Callan, who both scored 89.715. The next three were Arthur J. Parrinello,
Daniel A. Nigro and Mr. Ganci, who all scored 87.143.The remaining eligibles who could have been
reached under the 1-in-3 rule were Theodore H. Goldfarb and Frank P. Crathers,
who both scored 84.572. Rounding out the list were Alexander W.
Santora, with 84.5, and Gerard A. Barbara and John W. Kelly, both with 82. Mr.
Cruthers was appointeded Chief of Department by then-Fire Commissioner Howard
Safir in 1996 but was replaced by Mr. Von Essen the following year in favor of
another eligible, Joseph Casaburi.Mr. Casaburi was injured in a car accident
while on duty in 1998 and retired last year. Mr. Ganci served in the title in
an acting capacity, and was named to the post provisionally upon Mr. Casaburi's
retirement.The new list for Chief of Department will
remain valid for one year. The scoring method was not released.

Lack of $$
imperils fix of firetrap RR tunnels

By TOM
TOPOUSIS (NY Post 12-19-2000)

A top federal transportation official yesterday warned that potentially
life-threatening conditions in Penn Station's six aging railroad tunnels won't
be fixed for another 28 years at the current rate of funding.
Transportation Department Inspector General Mead said, "the effort
to renovate the dangerous tunnels beneath the Hudson and East Rivers is getting
a paltry $27.5 million a year."
In a report to a House subcommittee, Mead said the spending pales in
comparison to the $898 million that is the latest price tag for completing the
job. The work was last estimated at $654 million in 1997.
The 90-year-old tunnels lack adequate ventilation and firefighting
equipment, while emergency staircases that descend 10 flights are too narrow to
evacuate passengers and bring in rescuers at the same time.
City fire officials have called the tunnels "a catastrophe waiting
to happen." The Post first reported the dangers facing nearly 500,000
daily Amtrack, Long Island Rail Road and NJ Transit riders two weeks ago. Since
then, railroad officials have been huddling over ways to speed the tunnel
improvements.
Rep. Frank Wolf, (R-Va.), chairman of the transportation appropriations
subcommittee, requested the IG's report last month after an Austrian railroad
tunnel fire killed 159 passengers.
Wolf has insisted that Amtrack, which owns the tunnel, must get the
safety issues resolved by the time Penn Station's $800 million expansion into
the Farley Post Office is completed in 2005.
"If you don't link them the real danger is that you can see Penn
Station and the progress or lack of progress there. But you'll never see what's
going on or has not gone on below."
"Amtrack has been ignoring the issue," said Wolf.
Amtrack officials, last week, said they would be able to speed up
completion of the most serious safety problems in the tunnels by 2006 - but
only if Congress gives the railroad enough money for the job.
Mead's estimate of the cost of upgrading the tunnels doesn't include the
$125 million slated to be spent by the LIRR over the next five years - on top
of about $97 million the commuter line has already invested.
In his report, Mead warned that the risk of fire is real. "In the
last five years there have been four incidents in which fires or smoke
conditions have forced the closing of a tunnel," he said.

I would like to thank you for attending the United Retired Firefighters
Assn. (URFA) meeting on 12/27/00. At that meeting, you said the UFA was still
open for suggestions concerning the Retiree SBF and other matters which were
discussed. After conferring with members of the Keystone-FDNY-Retirees, I have
the following suggestions to make:

Combine
Retiree & Active Security Benefit Funds. This would help to insure that
there will be enough funds for current retirees and prospective retirees. The
active member will be quite surprised to find out how much he/she will have to
pay for prescriptions when they retire.

Generic Drug Option enjoyed by the active firefighter.
It is my belief that the Retirees SBF would be in better shape if we had that
option in 1990.

Improve
FDNY Mandatory Life Insurance for Retirees. As I stated at the meeting, I
believe the active firefighter must be educated by the union as to the
necessity of the FDNY Mandatory Life Insurance. They must be made aware that
their current UFA Insurance policies of $350,000.00 will terminate when they
reach 70 years of age. The prospective retiree has a greater chance of
surpassing that age than do current retirees. Retirees paid for those who
preceded them and now deserve to be treated similarly. Fortunately, not very
many active firefighters die before they retiree, therefore the real need for
the FDNY Mandatory Ins. is in retirement. This may very well be the only
insurance the prospective retiree has at age 70. Their beneficiary should not
have to worry about burial costs.

Retiree on
SBF Board. There is no-one better qualified than a retiree to address retiree
issues.

Dues
check-off for retiree UFA Catastrophe Major Medical Insurance. If anyone truly
needs a dues check-off for this insurance, it is the retiree.

Be assured, retirees will be vigorously
supporting the Medicare Part B and Spousal Health Insurance Bills alluded to,
by Mr. Carter, at the meeting.
In closing, remember, active
firefighters are prospective
retirees and current
retirees continue to fight for their benefit. The UFA is the guardian of this trust and has the
awesome obligation to educate its members, while preparing them for that
ultimate transition. Thank you for your genuine concern for all
firefighters.

In Friendship & Brotherhood,

cc: URFA Assn.'s.

_John______________________

John R. Gilleeny, Pres.-Keystone

City, Unions
Cut Deal On Benefits Package

By JOANNE WASSERMAN (Daily News - 1/12/01)

The city and its unions have agreed to a package of health and fringe
benefits for 500,000 municipal workers and retirees that both sides hope will
pave the way for a quick wage settlement.
Announced yesterday, the two-year package for all municipal employees
includes broadening the city's 401(k) fund for more workers and improving
medical coverage.
"The additional benefits were financed by using about $165 million
the city has poured into a special fund, in recent years, to pay for increased
health-care costs,"officials said.
The agreement also calls for a give-back that eventually will save the
city millions of dollars by extending from five to 10 years the amount of time
city workers must wait to receive health insurance after they retire.
The talks took place as the city and the uniformed coalition representing
correction officers, sanitation workers, firefighters and police supervisors
are on the verge of a deal to pay workers about 10% more over two years.
Randi Weingarten, the teachers union chief who heads the Municipal Labor
Committee, said she hoped that because the benefits package includes savings
for the city, "this should give the city clear sailing to sit down and
bargain a fair and equitable wage settlement."
One city official said the agreement is "good for us and good for
[the unions]. They have used their own money to buy increased
benefits."
Jim Hanley, the city's chief labor negotiator, said that eventually,
thousands of retired workers would be affected by the increase in time to
collect health benefits. He said the city would save "several millions of
dollars" because of the lag.

Firefighter Donald Franklin

5-5-5-5Firefighter Donald Franklin

N Y POST.......By WILLIAM J. GORTA, JESSICA GRAHAM, and LARRY CELONA

A 16-year
veteran firefighter died of a heart attack last
night after battling a blaze at a dilapidated South Bronx building that killed
an elderly couple and
critically wounded
an 87-year-old man.
Paramedics desperately tried to revive Firefighter
Donald Franklin, 42, at the scene of the two-alarm fire at 320 E. 166th
St., said Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen. But he was pronounced dead soon
after at Lincoln Hospital.
"They believe it was a massive heart attack," Von Essen said.
"It's a very strenuous job." Franklin,
who worked seven years in Brooklyn and nine in The Bronx, most recently for
Ladder Company 44, was the second firefighter to die this year. Franklin, of upstate Westtown, near Warwick,
is survived by his wife and a stepdaughter, and five
children, between 5 and 16, from his first marriage. The fire broke out
at around 8 p.m. on the fifth floor of the five-story building in the
Morrisania section. Flames quickly engulfed the fifth-floor the apartment of
Nathaniel and Jean Barnes, a couple in their 60s who were pronounced dead at
the scene. Neighbors said that Nathaniel Barnes had recently suffered a stroke
and was paralyzed on one side of his body.
A third elderly resident of the building, 87-year-old Mann Smith,
suffered burns and was in critical condition at Lincoln Hospital, a spokeswoman
said. The blaze was under control in less than an hour. Von Essensaid it appeared one of the victims had been
smoking in bed.
Franklin had been on the roof venting the building of smoke and came
downstairs, appearing ill, Von Essen said. He was walked to an ambulance, where
he collapsed. Von Essen said the heroics of two
neighbors, identified by a neighbor as Zebediah Hart and
Eugene Adams, probably saved the life of Smith. The youngsters dragged
the elderly man from the apartment to a landing in the building. "If he
has any chance to live, it's probably because of those two guys that got him
out," Von Essen said. A neighbor, Booker
Moore, said the couple had been through hard times recently. Other residents
said the wife had retired and had been caring for her disabled husband.
"All I know about them is they had a son who passed away a few years
ago," said Moore. Another neighbor who asked not be identified said the
elderly couple's death was a real tragedy. "They were good people,"
he said.
Neighbors said Smith was the former superintendent of the building and
had most recently been living with Barneses, who took care of him. Fire
officials said the city-owned building was in disrepair, with only eight out of
19 units occupied.
"There was a tremendous amount of heat and fire," said Sixth
Division Fire Chief John Quevedo. "It was completely black. It was very
disorienting."
Firefighters waded through clutter to reach the victims inside the
apartment, Quevedo said, only to find that the ceiling had collapsed on the
residents. Mayor Giuliani and police and fire
brass rushed to Lincoln Hospital last night to pay their respects to Franklin's
family and co-workers.
Earlier this month, Firefighter Gregg
McLoughlin, 39, collapsed and died of a
heart attack while working out in his Queens firehouse.
Last year, Kenneth Kerr, 44, a father of four from
Engine Company 91 in The Bronx, died Nov. 17 of an apparent heart attack after
helping to put out an elevator fire.
The 14-year veteran was the only firefighter to die in the line of duty
in 2000. A wake for FF Donald Franklin will be held
today (1-15-01) from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. and tomorrow from 2 p.m. to 4p.m. and 7
p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Applebee-McPhillips Funeral Home, 130 Highland Ave.
Middletown, N.Y.A funeral Mass will be held noon Wednesday
at the First Presbyterian Church on Orchard St., Middletown.

Firemen Just
in Time To Save Baby & Mom

By BILL
EGBERT and BILL HUTCHINSON Daily News Staff Writers (1-15-01)

A mother and her 2-year-old son were plucked
from a burning Manhattan apartment last night by firefighters, who resuscitated
the boy as he was carried down a ladder, officials said. "He didn't
have much longer," said Firefighter Chris
Williamson, 28, said of the boy, who had stopped breathing when
firefighters found him and his unconscious mom in their sixth-floor Inwood
apartment. "I guess we reached him just in time."
The three-alarm blaze began at about 8:15 p.m. in the family's apartment
on the top floor of 103 Post Ave. The cause was not immediately known.Firefighters found a
man, believed to be the boy's father, hanging from an air-conditioner, a floor
below the burning apartment. A neighbor perched on a fire escape was trying to
toss a rope to the man when firefighters rescued him by ladder.
Williamson, Firefighter Dave Alexander and
FDNY Lt. Bob Alfieri  all of Ladder Co. 36
 rushed from door to door searching for trapped people. They found the
fire in a top-floor apartment.
"The fire was right at the front door, waiting for us," said
Alexander, 30. "All the rooms were burning."
Alexander battled flames with a fire extinguisher while Williamson and
Alfieri searched the back room. They found the child and his 30-year-old mother
unconscious on the floor. They carried the victims to the window where
firefighter Scott Atlas was waiting on an aerial ladder. Atlas began CPR on the
child as he carried him to safety, Williamson said. Fire officials said the
mother and son were conscious and in stable condition last night at Harlem
Hospital.

BRAVEST
HEART ATTACKS SOAR

Monday,January 15,2001

By
TOM TOPOUSIS and IKIMULISA SOCKWELL-MASON

- Firefighters
braving the heat, flames and treacherous conditions inside a burning building
are more likely to die of a heart attack on the job than anything else, federal
studies show. Donald Franklin, who collapsed after
fighting a blaze that killed a couple in their burning Bronx home Friday night,
was the third city
firefighter to die in as many months - all of heart attacks.
Firefighter deaths are down overall in recent years, thanks in large part
to "bunker gear" that protects against burns and allows the city's
Bravest to go deeper into a structure fire.
But some firefighters say that the new gear's protection from flames
exposes them to other dangers, particularly from heat and exhaustion, pushing
up the risk of heart attacks.
"It's a Catch-22," said Tom DaParma, a trustee with the
Uniformed Fire Fighters Association and a 23-year veteran of the FDNY.
"Burns have gone down, but heart attacks are up."
"Bunker gear allows us to do our job better, getting right into a
fire," DaParma said. "The downside to that is that we're in the
middle of a fire and the core temperature of our body is really rising."
Franklin, 42, was the first firefighter to die in the line of duty this
year. Earlier this month, Gregg McLoughlin, 39, died of a heart attack just
after his shift while running on a treadmill at Engine Co. 302 in Queens.
In November, firefighter Kenneth Kerr died of a heart attack at his Bronx
firehouse moments after returning from battling a blaze. He was the only city
firefighter to die in the line of duty during 2000.
Nationally, 30 of the 95 firefighters who died in action last year were
felled by heart attacks. Motor-vehicle accidents while traveling to or from a
fire scene were the second-leading cause of death, claiming 13 firefighters in
2000.